June 1, 2007

She’s Right — And Her Newspaper Is, and Has Been, Wrong (Includes Rerun of WSJ’s 1984 ‘There Shall Be Open Borders’ Editorial)

2:00 p.m. – This post has been carried to the top for the rest of the day because of the interest it has generated.


Peggy Noonan:

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker–”At this point the break became final.” That’s not what’s happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them.

….. For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.”

….. Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it’s time. It’s more than time.

I can’t help but wonder if this is one of Noonan’s final columns in the Wall Street “There Shall Be Open Borders” Journal.

Speaking of which, I obtained from the ProQuest library database the original July 3, 1984 Wall Street Journal “There Shall Be Open Borders” editorial, and have stored it at my web host for fair use and discussion purposes only. It’s also reproduced below the fold if you’re on the home page.

How inspiring and idealistic it seemed at the time. How naive, simplistic, and dangerous it is and, in retrospect, has always been. Also note how history has proven the Journal oh-so-wrong about Europe’s ultimate failure to control its invading horde.

For 23 years now, the Journal has refused to recognize the dangers of first a few million, then over 10 million, now 12-20 million, and if they get their way (who knows?) perhaps 40 million more illegal people in our midst — many if not most of whom are, at best, NOT interested in assimilation, and some of whom are, and will continue to be, working day and night on our destruction.

The editorialists at the Journal have, as far as I can recall, never budged an inch from “There Shall Be Open Borders.” It’s clear that no amount of reality will cause them to get a grip.

Click “more” if you are on the home page to see the 1984 editorial.


REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Editorial): In Praise of Huddled Masses
Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 3, 1984. pg. 1

Amid the fireworks and picnics as this nation celebrates its independence tomorrow, we hope Americans stop to ask, what is the United States? The question is especially appropriate at this moment in the history of a nation of immigrants; upon returning from its July 4 recess Congress will try to finish work on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

The answer to the question is in the first words of our Constitution, “We, the people.” It was the people, and especially new people, who worked this land into a New World. We hope today’s gentlepeople, the descendants of the tired and poor who sought refuge on these shores, can still spare a thought for today’s huddled masses, yearning to be free.

Simpson-Mazzoli, we are repeatedly told, is a carefully crafted compromise. It is in fact an anti-immigration bill. Note well that despite its grant of amnesty for aliens who have been residents long enough, its most outspoken opponents are the Hispanics, who would prefer to live with the present laws. Its constituency is an interesting and perhaps portentous alliance of the “nativist” Americans who still dominate Mountain States politics and the “Club of Rome” elitists of the Boston-Washington corridor.

We can hope that the bill will die in the House-Senate conference, which still must resolve such contentious differences as whether or not to have a program of temporary guest workers for agriculture. If it survives conference, President Reagan would be wise to veto it as antithetical to the national self-confidence his administration has done so much to renew.

If Washington still wants to “do something” about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. Perhaps this policy is overly ambitious in today’s world, but the U.S. became the world’s envy by trumpeting precisely this kind of heresy. Our greatest heresy is that we believe in people as the great resource of our land. Those who would live in freedom have voted over the centuries with their feet. Wherever the state abused its people, beginning with the Puritan pilgrims and continuing today in places like Ho Chi Minh City and Managua, they’ve aimed for our shores. They — we — have astonished the world with the country’s success.

The nativist patriots scream for “control of the borders.” It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to “control the borders” at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property.

The instinct is seconded by the “zero-sum” mentality that has been intellectually faddish this past decade. More people, the worry runs, will lead to overcrowding; will use up all our “resources,” and will cause unemployment. Trembling no-growthers cry that we’ll never “feed,” “house” or “clothe” all the immigrants — though the immigrants want to feed, house and clothe themselves. In fact, people are the great resource, and so long as we keep our economy free, more people means more growth, the more the merrier. Somehow the Reagan administration at least momentarily adopted the cramped Club-of-Rome vision, forgetting which side of this debate it is supposed to support. Ronald Reagan, we thought, marched to different bywords — “growth,” for example, and “opportunity.”

If anyone doubts that the immigration and growth issue touches the fundamental character of a nation, he should look to recent experience in Europe. Some European governments are taken in by the no-growth nonsense that economic pies no longer grow, and must be sliced. They are actually paying immigrants and guest workers to go home: the Germans pay Turks, the French pay North Africans, the British pay West Indians and Asians. It was this dour view of people as liabilities, not assets, that led to the great European emigration to the U.S. in the first place. Meanwhile, Europe today settles into long-term unemployment for millions while the U.S. economy is booming with new jobs.

The same underlying difference in vision applies in political ideals. The individual is the lightning rod of 20th-century politics. The totalitarians of the Communist Bloc don’t allow their people to leave. The foremost use of the machinery of the state is to wall in the citizens. If we cannot change their regimes, the least we can do is to offer refuge to those of their peoples with the opportunity and courage to arrive here. To do otherwise is to say that the ideals upon which this Republic was founded are spent, that what is left is to negotiate the terms of surrender.

America, above all, is a nation founded upon optimism. The Republic will prosper so long as it does not disavow this taproot. The issue is not what we offer the teeming masses, but what they offer us: their hands, their minds, their spirit, and above all the chance to be true to our own past and our own future.



  1. [...] Tammy Bruce, Right Wing Nut House, MyDD, Wonkette, Michael P.F. van der Galiën, Flopping Aces, My Left Wing, Six Meat Buffet, Moonbattery, CorrenteWire, Outside The Beltway, Hot Air, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Right Wing News, Bring it On!, Senate 2008 Guru, Blue Crab Boulevard, Greatscat!, DownWithTyranny!, Bluey Blog, Wizbang New Pairodimes , The Strata-Sphere, DownWithTyranny!, The Gun Toting Liberal™, BizzyBlog, La Shawn Barber’s Corner, Rising Hegemon, Vox Popoli, TBogg, Cliff Schecter, Sadly, No! and Hot Air Last 10 posts by BitheadThe story of the barn door and the missing horse – June 1st, 2007Nightly Ramble: Warm Thursday – May 31st, 2007Warming from the Sun – May 31st, 2007Nightly Ramble: A short album and some short quips – May 30th, 2007Democrats claim again Plame was covert. In other news, large light scheduled to appear in east. – May 30th, 2007Thompson to annouce over 4th of July – May 30th, 2007Pardon me while I throw up. – May 29th, 2007Nightly Ramble: The Banannas, Split – May 28th, 2007Charles Nelson Reilly, RIP, age 76 – May 28th, 2007Bithead’s greatest hits: July 28th 2001: Gary Condit – May 28th, 2007Extend the reach of this postRelated links [...]

    Pingback by BitsBlog » About those telephone solicitors…. — June 1, 2007 @ 9:43 am

  2. FYI. ProQuest represents search word(s) that are used in it’s ‘Search’, with a red font in the text of the articles that were found via the search results.

    Comment by martywd — June 1, 2007 @ 11:20 am

  3. #2, thanks for the info. I did a Visine thing and *got the red out.*

    What a newbie I am. :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — June 1, 2007 @ 11:27 am

  4. WSJ Journal Editorial from 1984 Called for Open Borders…

    Anyone wondering if the Wall Street Journal’s stance on the current “comprehensive immigration reform” bill being debated in the Senate (they support it) is a new phenomenon from this traditionally conservative paper can wonder no more. It’s not. B…

    Trackback by Blogmeister USA — June 1, 2007 @ 11:55 am

  5. Business is business. Why are people surprised at this? The part that people SHOULD be surprised at is NOT being honest. It is sort of like PETA not wanting to openly say that animals are more important than people in their view. Governments get in the way of business. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

    Right or wrong, depending on your view of the world, it is reality.

    Comment by Richard Nelson — June 3, 2007 @ 10:32 am

  6. #5, “business” (if the you assume the WSJ to represent “business”) that blindly supports open borders after 23 years, and is blind to the obvious security, crime, other dangers, is failing to recognize that “business” can’t grow and prosper without the framework of a reasonably safe, secure, and civilized society.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 3, 2007 @ 12:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.